Tests of Authenticity and Credibility

Method vs. Historiography

Historical Method is the process of rigorously examining and critically analyzing the records and survivals of the past, applying a set of scientific rules to determine whether a reconstructed event actually occurred.

Historiography refers to the process of writing history — synthesizing tested data into a narrative. Before a historian begins writing, they must have completed the methodological work of examining their sources.

External Criticism: The Test of Authenticity

Authenticity means originality. The test asks: Is this source what it claims to be?

This test is necessary because:

1. Sources can be fabricated. A historical example is the alleged Maragtas, a document that historian William Henry Scott (1984) argued was based on suspicious oral traditions and fabricated written sources.
2. Negative revisionism exists. Deliberate attempts to downplay, minimize, or distort historical events.
3. Sources can mislead. Misleading sources — even unintentionally — miseducate people by distorting the value or meaning of events.

In assessing authenticity, historians examine:

• Authorship — Who created the source?
• Time — When was the event? When was the source created relative to that event?
• Space (setting/context) — Where did the event occur?

Internal Criticism: The Test of Credibility

Once authenticity is established, the historian turns to internal criticism — evaluating whether the source accurately represents reality.

For a source to be credible, Gottschalk (1950) suggests the historian assess:

1. The competence of the source (did the author have sufficient knowledge or vantage point?)
2. The willingness to tell the truth (was there reason to deceive?)
3. The adequacy of the data — is the information detailed and complete enough?
4. The reliability when tested against other independent sources

Gottschalk famously described the historian's role as playing "prosecutor, attorney for the defense, judge, and jury all in one."

Every author writes from a particular vantage point, with personal, cultural, or institutional interests that color their account. Identifying these biases does not automatically disqualify a source, but it shapes how the historian interprets it.

Basic Assumptions When Working with Sources

1. Sources are accurate when proven authentic and credible. Relics and artifacts tend to be more reliable; documents and testimonies are more detailed.
2. Authenticity and credibility reinforce each other.
3. A primary source is generally more reliable than a secondary one.
4. Credibility increases when multiple independent sources agree.
5. Sources tend to carry biases toward their place of origin or producing person/institution.
6. Witnesses without direct personal interest tend to be more credible than those with a stake in the outcome.
7. When all independent sources agree on an event, that event is generally accepted as factual.
8. Testimony is most credible when the witness was mentally and emotionally fit at the time of their account.
9. A source that does not fit the milieu of its supposed period is likely fabricated.

Dealing with Disagreeing or Hostile Sources

When sources contradict each other:

1. If both are equally valid, prefer the one with more logical reasoning and common sense.
2. If authenticity and credibility are unequal, prefer the more solidly authenticated source.
3. Hostile sources must be approached with extra caution and corroborated.
4. Sources representing a fixed ideological viewpoint should be cross-checked against others not aligned with that perspective.

Ethics in Historical Research

Historians are expected to:

• Be aware of personal biases
• Remain objective and accurate in examining and analyzing sources
• Be impartial in interpretation and synthesis
• Use all relevant sources, including those that challenge their argument
• Cite sources properly
• Avoid plagiarism, fabrication, deception, or academic dishonesty
• Acknowledge debts to other scholars
• Avoid irresponsible or distorted interpretation
• Never use sources to deliberately mislead or modify history for personal benefit